“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Friday, 16 June 2017

The 'pros' always beat the 'ams', dammit!

For a couple days now I have pondered on the fate of Tim Farron MP whilst attempting, in my usual amateurish way, to compose one of my astute, penetrating blog posts - er, sorry, did you say something? He has been forced from his role as leader of the 'il-Lib-non-Dem' party and I suppose the only good thing to come out of it is the absolute proof that my nickname for this hectoring, bullying, fascistic bunch of Politically Correct Commissars was spot on! As I struggled - oh alright then - as I mulled over different ways of expressing what passes for my thoughts, in steps Peter Oborne in The Daily Mail and says it all for me - dammit! - and it is worth reading.

Farron, himself, never impressed me as a politician but I recognised that beneath his almost schoolboy (or perhaps, choirboy!) demeanour there was what looked like a fairly decent human being. It became increasingly clear during the recent election that he was deeply imbued with fairly fundamental Christian beliefs although it is worth emphasising that these remained his own personal beliefs which at no time had he attempted to force on the party or the voters. However, that was enough for the nastier elements who have inhabited the 'il-Lib-non-Dem' party to drive him from office led by two homosexuals, Brian Paddick and David Laws. It is not enough for them that a man may hold private and personal opinions which counter the metropolitan orthodoxy. For them, there is no such thing as private opinion, only the rigid orthodoxy that they, the Great and the Good, lay down and in God-like style they will smote any transgressors!

It takes a 'pro', like Mr. Oborne, to remind us that the so-called 'Liberal' party has now achieved the exact opposite of what its founders believed:

Liberals believe in freedom in all its shapes and sizes. That means free trade. Free markets. Freedom of thought. Free speech.The modern Lib Dem Party does not believe in those freedoms. It supports state control of markets, allows only one set of politically correct opinions and is bitterly opposed to freedom of thought.

[...]

I imagine that very few modern Lib Dems can have heard of John Stuart Mill, the great 19th century philosopher, despite the fact that he was actually the founder of modern liberalism.He had many magnificent achievements to his name, including being the first MP to call for women to get the vote.He devoted his life to a cause that is hated by modern Lib Dems — namely, freeing the individual from the injustice and barbarism of state control.He also fought hard for freedom of speech and thought.His book, On Liberty, published in 1859, is one of the greatest and most influential ever published in the English language, calling as it does for all but unlimited freedom of speech. In a famous passage that has echoed down the ages, Mill maintained that it is essential that even ‘false opinion’ is heard.

We must all hope and, if it is your preferred mode, pray that the 'il-Lib-non-Dem' party, like their previous leader, the smug and insufferable Nick Clegg, are consigned to the footnote in history that they deserve.

Labour, Lib-Dem, and Tories - all at the bottom of Nolan: left, centre, and right of the bottom most point, respectively.

Near indistinguishable in their authoritarianism.

When will the second enlightenment take us out of this dark age? (You only entered this dark age on 23rd June 2016, you've got decades, maybe even centuries, to go yet - well beyond your lifetime ... Ed).

Ah well, "Sauve qui peut" then, I suppose.

By Goerge and all the Saints, even the Leavers know it - think how many must be wishing for a second passport out of Gulag Britain if 89% of the whole UK population want one! ...

"Liberals believe in freedom in all its shapes and sizes. That means free trade. Free markets. Freedom of thought. Free speech."

The ideas and history of liberalism don't really match up on both sides of the Atlantic (Tories are far more liberal than the major "conservative" party here), but Oborne's statement is generally nonsense. He doesn't know the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism ).

No freedom is absolute, except possibly freedom of thought, and it's been under assault for millennia, more formally beginning around 1622 by the Catholic church's Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. The word "propaganda" is derived from it.

Free trade and free markets are catchphrases of the neoliberal project that has given the world its current state of economic inequalities and political disarray. It has succeeded in some ways and failed in others. It's the failures that affect most people, and from here forward neoliberalism will most likely be on the decline. It's the main reason for the democratic push back against the EU by Brits and Washington by Americans.

Before one of you accuses me of promoting Marxism, I'll state flatly that Marxism is obsolete and the probably future includes a more regulated form of capitalism and greater emphasis on small "d" democracy.

"Free trade and free markets are catchphrases of the neoliberal project that has given the world its current state of economic inequalities and political disarray."

Rubbish, Bob!

The inequalities that existed yester-year between the socialist states of the East and the neo-liberal states of the West were far greater than today. That's exactly why the socialist states collapsed. And within those socialist states existed greater inequality than exists within them today as they run with neo-liberalism.

The political disarray of today is caused by the realization of the West that the East has learned how to do neo-liberalism, and not necessarily with democracy included, and is catching up in prosperity and wealth fast! Even the EU can run a single market and get all palsy with China and India, when the US and UK appear not to be able to. We are at best being hoisted by our own petard, or at worst proactively heading forma role reversal!

... That's the direction you lefties should be going. Funny, you've tried just about every authoritarian variant of socialism in that list in the right hand panel of the link, and the only one that might have got you somewhere - Libertarian Socialism - is the only one you haven't properly tried!

And the country-bumpkins and neo-fascists are no better, in fact, worse! They actually tried Libertarian-Conservatism for a decade and had the greatest success they ever had - then stabbed their leaders in the back, demonized them and the ideology, and took the country back to the dark ages again.

Flipping hell, I'm not sure I'll be able to keep this up much longer - y'all be probably pleased to hear that! But do you still not see it?

Aaaagggh SoD - you were doing really well for a minute there and then you blew it.

Oh, and repeat after me: The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise
The EU is not a wondrous thatcherite paradise

Where did you get the idea I'm a lefty? You're confusing liberalism with the left and socialism, and socialism with government central economic planning. My personal philosophy is that the long arc of history leads to democratic socialism, which allows only the social projects agreed on in a democratic process.

Maybe "Marxism is obsolete" was too subtle. The labor theory of value no longer applies. Robots are stimulating a new industrial revolution that, in most ways, disconnects material production and workers. So the BMI, which you claim to support, is emerging.

Anti-authoritarianism only makes sense to a point. Someone has to make the trains run on time (just kidding). According to the wiki, libertarian socialism "... advocates a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism)." So why are you different from a socialist, or communist for that matter?

"Anti-authoritarianism only makes sense to a point. Someone has to make the trains run on time (just kidding)."

Oops, what a give away! Just can't keep your hands off the controls of the train set! Remind me, why wouldn't a transport provider in a competitive free market not make the trains run on time?

Instead of joking about industries that you think can only be run by authority, how about you actually give me some real examples? Which industries have to be run by authority, and for what reason?

"According to the wiki, libertarian socialism "... advocates a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism)." So why are you different from a socialist, or communist for that matter?"

I am not a Libertarian Socialist. Nor am I Libertarian Conservative. Nor am I a Libertarian Lib-Dem.

What I am is someone who would like to see the whole political party system move from Authoritarian Socialist, Authoritarian Conservative, and Authoritarian Lib-Dem, to their Libertarian counterparts.

Ohh dem terms!! Democracies die and socialism kills. A democracy will no longer be democratic if it becomes socialist. A free dependent but indolent population will die off under its own slothful weight or be overtaken by a more virile population of men with an aggressive idea. Western democracies will either shed their indolent dead weight or die because of the bad ideas that created the dead weight. I guess Henry is right about the Darwin part.

The nerve of these people! Where do they get off imagining that government has any right to establish building codes and interfere with the market place. Or dictate that you can't sell infected foods if you so desire. How dare they?

On a separate note I have to say despite many interesting comments here the first was probably the best and most worthy of exploration. First let me say that I am as pure a believer in free speech as exists. Say whatever you like and are prepared to pay the price for saying. Free speech is never free. Now whitehead would have something called pc disappear. I will go out on a limb here and guess he meant political correctness. What can that possibly mean? That people who disagree with you must be compelled to accept your views on anything or everything. Or does it mean they must be compelled to not hear what you have said. Possibly it means something else entirely but I cannot guess what that might be. Regardless I am keen to learn what procedure is proposed for forcing the elimination of this thing called political correctness. I foresee difficulties in countries that elect their leaders by popular vote. You can't get elected to anything without either stealing the election or complying with whatever happens to be, even just locally, politically correct.

So now for some breezy comments on the silliness of Peter Osborne. First question, if Mr Farron did not wish his personal views to reflect the position of the party he wished to lead then why did he make them known. Why not just go with that better part of wisdom and just shut up about them? Clearly he wanted to signal that people with odious opinions ( as I happen to believe) are welcome in his party. Which is probably why they fell on their faces. In the words of the French knight declining King Arthur's invitation to join his quest for the grail: No thanks, we already got one. Given that British partiies, like May's, already have strongly homophobic repleat with anti-abortion sentiments and that their grip on government hinges on the support of the DUP ( which apparently has no views or goals other than those) it just seems rather foolish to infect your own party with junk the other guys do so much better.

This is really what people mean by political correctness. It simply means that what they want is for their beliefs to become politically correct orthodoxy. Nope. Not going to happen. I look forward to Osborne's next equally logical piece arguing that the results of the election means the Conservatives need to adopt or at least respect the views of Corbyn.

So, then, you are a chip off the old block and also an anarchist. Very good. On the subject of trains, read about the history of the westward expansion of steam locomotives in the US. There were initially no federal standards for track gauge, and trains often had to stop at state or territorial borders so passengers could continue their travel by switching trains. Few would argue that was an efficient state of affairs. Today's technologies are much more complicated and dangerous and require ever more standardization and control.

Private companies aim to make a profit. Period. Generally they are not concerned with practical matters, financial probity, public health, safety, etc. Laws enforced through democratic government are an equitable check on destructive profit seeking. Since they are determined by society at large, they are not authoritarian.

The recent residential tower fire in your country has been associated with poor planning and inappropriate materials:

Off topic, but last night we saw an ISO performance of Ludwig's 5th that was excellent. One of the best things about it was the second row violinist at the front of the stage, a pretty woman probably in her mid 20's with a magnificent chest that rippled and swayed during passages requiring fast bowing. Gods, to be 25 again.

"The nerve of these people! Where do they get off imagining that government has any right to establish building codes and interfere with the market place. Or dictate that you can't sell infected foods if you so desire. How dare they?"

So you still can't manage to quote a single example of an industry that should be run by the state? Instead you point out that the laws of the land should stand. Of course; Libertarianism is not anarchism.

Bob,

Not still on about trains, this time railway track gauges.

Do you not think that a capitalist would have bought the lines and standardized the gauge if it had been worth it? Microsoft tried to buck the trends with non-standard software specifications, and in the end threw its lot in with open standards, and now even open source.

The market both tends to monopoly, and abhors a monopoly. The "winner" in a market who achieves a monopoly then over-charges and achieves super-normal profits - which the attracts competition from global capital to steal a piece of the action, thereby opening up competition again. Left alone, the market will lay low monopolies by shifting capital into the monopoly industry in support of challenger businesses. And these lay low the monopolist

And markets move faster than governments these days in this regard. By the time some blowhard pol sets up a monopoly investigation the market has clobbered the monopolist.

About the only gov that's managed to be fast moving and efficient enough to catch monopolists before the market today is the EU - the very gov that most D&N readers berate for its inefficiency!

And then there's Grenfell. The state put those people in that building, the state passed the building regulations, the state commissioned the construction and renovation. And you're trying to tell me the state's blameless and the contractors are at fault? Bonkers.

The state can't procure because it is inept. The state can't maintain and operatecapital because it is inept. In these regards, the state is broken by design.

Peter G, sorry I missed my name, or its attempt, in your comment above. Yes I do mean PC to be "political correctness". I mean it in a much deeper and dangerous degree than you covered it. Where you left it is pretty much correct.

Bob, do you by chance have a link to a photo or similar for that 20 something woman you saw?

Well, here it is. The admission. Theresa May has just said, not indirectly, not via innuendo or other "signalling", she has said directly and precisely: "I, and everyone who works for me in the executive, am a statist spastic."

Too late, my dear. Ronnie Reagan said that before the event, when he said, "In the times we live, the state is the problem, not the solution.". Good man. Good, good man. And you, shitty, useless, manslaughtering woman, what will your statement be, after the event that leaves you splattered with the blood and cinders of human remains, the consequences of your actions?

More state, more me, more executive.

Fuck you, you murderous, psycho-bitch. "Go fill another room in hell", as the bard famously implored, more subtly than I, and without swearing (sorry Gaffer).

Watching news, local people being asked, "Who has come here from the local government, and central government?". Answer, "No-one. No-one from the state has been here to help us. The only help has come from personal, private, actions of good individuals."

45% of Brit GDP goes through the state. No-one showed up. No-one showed up. Who showed up from the state in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? No-one ever shows up from the state.

Who does show up? The good individuals, the voluntary collectives, the MOTIVATIONS OF LIBERTARIANISM SHOW UP. Always, everywhere.

Again, a democratic society includes government, capitalists, and other motivated people. None of them are from a planet of hostile aliens attempting an invasion.

Seems that human motivation also favors armed services, crime control, protections for commerce, consumers, health and so on, negotiations with foreign governments, etc. Since it belongs to social animals, human motivation also tends to favor forming groups, including governments, which will be perfect just as soon as humans are. It matters not a whit if you or I personally want government to exist or not, the great majority of humans do. Laughably, many of them are outraged if they don't get the government that meets their personal expectations.

I can think of a lot of things that should be run by the state, SoD. Regulating businesses for example. All of them, all the time. They should also run things that must be done but cannot be done profitably by the private sector except as a regulated monopoly. Which government must also regulate.That would be things like postal services, public transport and the provision of health care, power distribution systems. There are, of course, things that must be run by government without the direct influence of politicians. The classic example would be the central bank of any nation. Given the fervent belief held by most politicians that the greater good requires their re-election, allowing them control of the levers of monetary policy never ends well.

Why couldn't a private sector corporation make the trains run on time? Good question Bob. Of course they could maximize their return on investment by, say, getting a little lax on maintenance or reducing service on lines not producing expected financial returns to the great That is what an unregulated private sector corporation would do. So someone would have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wouldn't they? And that someone had better be government. Then of course there is the small matter of liabilities which always occur in complex systems regardless of who runs them. I suppose one could exempt them from liability AND let them decide how best to squeeze profits out of their investment. In which case I will walk thanks.

So SoD your locals were asked in the wake of that terrible fire who showed up. No one from the government? No firefighters? No police? No ambulances or emergency medical personnell? Not one of them? I'm guessing they did. That is one of the things only government can do responsibly although there is no guarantee poorly run government can do it. Which brings me to the Reaganesque theory that government is the problem. If you elect politicians that espouse that theory they will prove themselves right every time. As George Bush did, most spectacularly, in selecting the thoroughly incompetent "heckuva a job" Brownie to head FEMA. His vast experience doing horse shows was just what the doctor ordered what? Especially when the job is dealing with massive disasters.

I am quite surprised that May didn't just fly over the the smoking ruins of that tower like Bush did over New Orleans. I suppose driving by showed greater compassion. Bush had an important birthday party to fly to so maybe that was the difference.

That's exactly why businesses don't cut corners on what matters to their customers - because they lose customers and go bust.

Honestly, posing a question that's critical of Libertarianism and then answering yourself in the same breath. Is that the best you can do? Cuffers, WW, BigHen, JK, and even the Gaffer would have kicked me round the block by now. You lefties aren't a patch on the Thatcher / Reagan 80's lefty mob I grew up fighting against.

Well saves a lecture from me I suppose (oh, I see I delivered one anyway)!

I might believe the astonishing stat, if it didn't emerge from information extracted from a "Citizenship Survey", conducted by CS Global Partners, who promote themselves as a law firm "specialising in citizenship and residence solutions".

"So SoD your locals were asked in the wake of that terrible fire who showed up. No one from the government? No firefighters? No police? No ambulances or emergency medical personnel? Not one of them?"

The firefighters showed up and squirted water on the building. They were the ones who advised the residents to stay in their flats and had placed contradictory or incomplete fire advice on the walls. They also made only a jobsworth's level of complaint about there being only 1 stairwell, no sprinklers, and firelighters stapled the height and width of the outside of the building. Perhaps too scared to offend their council and central government overlords - and, of course, the greens?

Speaking of bravery, how many firefighters died or were seriously injured? Errr, I'll take that as a zero.

"After taking them down, they were ordered to leave the building because the consuming smoke had rendered the environment too dangerous even for those wearing fire safety equipment."

Really? Breathing apparatus that is incapable in smokey environments? Who's head of procurement? Ah, yes ...

' "She (London fire commissioner Dany Cotton) said: “Had we just followed standard fire brigade procedures, we would not have been able to commit fire fighters in and conduct the rescues we did.” '

Great standard fire procedures then. If you had a choice of fire services: one whose SLA was Dany Cotton's, and another whose SLA was "we go in and up until the building is empty", who would you choose to protect you?

You might ask the young lad who was heading up one of the twin towers when a young woman was coming down, she emplored him to turn around, to which he replied, "I'm just doing my job, ma'am". But you can't ask him, because he went on up and gave his life.

Which service would you hire to protect you from fire if you had a Libertarian free market choice? NY or London?

And don't you wish you had a choice, to keep the jobsworth state honest?

And finally, of course, you don't have a choice because you live in a slavishly statist country, and now you can't even leave to achieve choice because on 23rd June 2016 you voted to end freedom of movement.